Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1467

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
KENT v. WHITBY [1788]
III BROWN.

Case 3.—John Kent, and Another,—Plaintiffs; Richard Whitby, et Ux—Defendants (in Error) [13th March 1738].

[By an Irish statute 6th Ann, a woman by subtil means, or secret insinuations and delusions, threats or menaces, prevailing on the son and heir apparent of any person, having lands of the yearly value of £50, or personal estate of the value of £500, to marry her, is rendered incapable of demanding any dower or thirds, or other interest, out of the real or personal estate of her husband. This being in the nature of a penal statute, must be construed strictly; and therefore where it is pleaded to a writ of dower, the jury must expressly find that subtil means, etc. were used; for they are not to be presumed from the circumstance of the marriage being private, and without the father's consent.]
[A writ of error in parliament from a judgment of any of the courts of law in Ireland, will not lie, unless the record passes through the Court of King's Bench in England. Q. If this practice is not altered by the repeal of 6 Geo. I. c. 5.] [See Shower P. C. 78.]

The defendant Katherine, who was the widow and relict of John Kent, deceased, did, in Michaelmas term 1726, bring in the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, a writ of dower against Edward May, Esq. and Robert Kent, Gent. thereby demanding her thirds of certain messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the county of Kilkenny, which were the freehold and inheritance of the said John Kent, her late husband.

The said Edward May and Robert Kent having obtained leave from the court to plead double, each of them put in two several pleas to the following effect: the first, that the said John Kent was never seised of such an estate in the said lands and tenements, that the said Katherine could be thereof endowed and the parties joined issue upon that fact. Their second plea was, that the said Katherine, on the 1st of May 1721, by subtil means, secret insinuations and delusions, threats and menaces, persuaded and procured the said John Kent, her late husband, and the eldest son and heir apparent of John Kent the elder, to contract matrimony with her, without the privity or consent of the said John Kent the elder, who was then alive, and had lands and tenements in fee simple of the yearly [488] value of £50, and that the said John Kent, formerly the husband of the said Katherine, was then of the age of 18, and no more, and never had any guardian, except his father; and that neither the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, nor the Keeper of the Great Seal of Ireland, for the time being, consented to the said marriage.

The defendant Katherine replied to the second plea, that she did not by subtil means, secret insinuations and delusions, throats and menaces, persuade or procure the said John Kent, formerly her husband, to contract matrimony with her, without the privity and consent of the said John Kent the elder, his father. And upon this, issue was joined.

Both the issues were tried at the Lent assizes held for the county of Kilkenny, on the 18th of March 1727. And as to the first, the jury found, that the said John Kent the younger, on the 6th of February 1725, died seised in fee simple of two-thirds (the whole into three parts to be divided) of certain messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments set forth in the verdict, and that the third part of the said two-thirds was of the yearly value of £79 5s. 9d. And as to the second plea, the jury found a special verdict to this effect; that the said Katherine contracted matrimony with the said John Kent, her late husband, without the privity or consent of the said John Kent the elder, his father; and that the said John Kent the younger, at the time of the said marriage, was under the age of 21 years, and the eldest son and heir apparent of the said John Kent the elder; and that the said John Kent the elder, at the time of the said marriage, was seised of lands in fee simple of the yearly value of £50 and upwards; but that the said Katherine did not persuade or procure the said John Kent the younger to contract matrimony with her by subtil means, or secret insinuations, delusions, threats, or menaces.

The Court, in Michaelmas term 1727, after several arguments, were of opinion, that

1451

This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.